Cover not available
Part of
Usage-Based Approaches to Language Change
Edited by Evie Coussé and Ferdinand von Mengden
[Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics 69] 2014
► pp. 49–80

On cognition and communication in usage-based models of language change

This article discusses eight theoretical aspects of usage-based models on language and language change from the perspectives of Cognitive Linguistics and a sociological model of communication: the relationship between usage events and grammatical structure, the model of communication, the primacy of meaning, the status of the linguistic sign, procedural anchoring and the role of frequency, the modelling of dynamic-stable processes, innovation, and diffusion. Its aim is to assess the theoretical validity of a model of language use that is based on communication in contrast to the established cognitive focus. It also identifies and discusses the explanatory potential of such a concept, namely a co-ordinated relationship between cognitive and communicative processing of language structure.

Published online: 10 July 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sfsl.69.03zei
References
Andersen, H.
(Ed.) (2001)  Actualization . Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Austin, J.L
(1962)  How to do things with words. The William James lectures delivered at Harvard University in 1955 . Cambridge: Harvard UP. 22003.Google Scholar
Baecker, D
(2005)  Form und Formen der Kommunikation . Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Bénard, H
(1901)  Les tourbillons cellulaires dans une nappe liquide propageant de la chaleur par convection en régime permanent . Thèse de doctorat, Paris: Gauthier-Villars.Google Scholar
Bergs, A. & Stein, D
(2001) The role of markedness in the actuation and actualization of linguistic change. In H. Andersen (Ed.), Actualization . (pp. 79–94). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bühler, K
(1934)  Sprachtheorie. Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache . Reprint Frankfurt: Ullstein 1978.Google Scholar
Bybee, J.L
(2001)  Phonology and language use . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chistovich, L.A, Sheikin, R.L. & Lublinskaya, V.V
(1979) ‘Centres of gravity’ and spectral peaks as the determinants of vowel quality. In B. Lindblom and S. Ohman (Eds.), Frontiers of speech communication research (pp. 143–157). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Cobley, P. & Schulz, P.J
(2013)  Theories and models of communication . [Handbooks of communication sciences 1] Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. & Cruse, D.A
(2004)  Cognitive Linguistics . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W
(2009a) Towards a social Cognitive Linguistics. In: V. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics [Human cognitive processing 24] (pp. 395–420). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Esposito, E
(1993) Zwei-Seiten-Formen in der Sprache. In D. Baecker (Ed.), Probleme der Form [stw 1069] (pp. 88–119). Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G
(1994)  Mental Spaces . Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language . New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Feilke, H
(1996)  Sprache als soziale Gestalt. Ausdruck, Prägung und die Ordnung der sprachlichen Typik . Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Flury, R
(1964)  Struktur- und Bedeutungsgeschichte des Adjektiv-Suffixes -bar . Winterthur: Keller.Google Scholar
Foerster, H. v
(1974)  Cybernetics of cybernetics . Urbana: University of Illinois.Google Scholar
(1981)  Observing systems . Seaside, CA: Intersystems Publications.Google Scholar
(1993) Für Niklas Luhmann. Wie rekursiv ist Kommunikation? Teoria sociologica , 1/2, 61–85.Google Scholar
(2003)  Understanding understanding . Essays on cybernetics and cognition . New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Fontdevila, J., Opazo, M.P. & White, H.C
(2011) Order at the Edge of Chaos: Meaning from Network Switchings Across Functional Systems. Sociological Theory , 29, 178–189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fuchs, P
(2003) Das psychische System und die Funktion des Bewußtseins. In O. Jahraus & N. Ort (Eds.), Theorie, Prozess, Selbstreferenz. Systemtheorie und transdisziplinäre Theoriebildung (pp. 25–47). Konstanz: UVK.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D. & Kristiansen, G
in press). Cognitive Linguistics and linguistic variation. In J.R. Taylor & J. Littlemore (Eds.) Bloomsbury companion to cognitive linguistic London / New York Bloomsbury
Geeraerts, D
(2005) Lectal variation and empirical data in Cognitive Linguistics. In F.J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez & M.S. Peña Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics. Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 163–190). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D., Kristiansen, G. & Zenner, E
(2012)  Cognitive Sociolinguistics. Variationist and interactional sociolinguistics from a cogntitive linguistics points of view (ICLC12 Theme session). Call for papers. LinguistList 23.3472, August 20th, 2012.
Harder, P
(2010)  Meaning in mind and society. A functional contribution to the social turn in cognitive linguistics . Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heider, F
(1926)  Ding und Medium . Reprint Berlin: Kadmos 2005.Google Scholar
Heylen, K., Tummers, J. & Geeraerts, D
(2008) Methodological issues in corpus-based Cognitive Linguistics. In G. Kristiansen & R. Dirven (Eds.), Cognitive sociolinguistics. Language variantion, cultural models, social systems [CLR 39] (pp. 91–128). Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holzer, B
(2008) Netzwerke und Systeme. Zum Verhältnis von Vernetzung und Differenzierung. In Ch. Stegbauer (ed.), Netzwerkanalyse und Netzwerktheorie . Ein neues Paradigma in den Sozialwissenschaften (pp. 156–164). Wiesbaden: VS.Google Scholar
Hruschka, D.J., Christiansen, M.H., Blythe, R.A., Croft, W., Heggarty, P., Mufwene, S.S., Pierrehumbert, J.B., Poplack, S
(2009) Building social cognitive models of language change. Trends in cognitive sciences , 13, 464–469. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, R.O
(1960) Linguistics and poetics. In Th. A Sebeok (Ed.), Style in language (pp. 350–377). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kemmer, S. & Barlow, M
(2000) Introduction. A usage-based conception of language. In M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp. vii–xxviii). Stanford: CSLI publications.Google Scholar
Kindt, W
(1994) Wortstellung als Problem einer dynamischen Grammatik. In B. Haftka (Ed.), Was determiniert Wortstellungsvariation ? (pp. 49–62). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kristiansen, G. & Dirven, R
(Eds) (2008)  Cognitive sociolinguistics. Language variantion, cultural models, social systems [CLR 39]. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G
(1977) Linguistic gestalts. In W.A. Beach, S.E. Fox & S. Philosoph (Eds.), Papers from the Thirteenth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society , April 14-16, 1977 (pp. 236–287). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Landsbergen, F., Lachlan, R., ten Cate, C. & Verhagen, A
(2010) A cultural evolutionary model of patterns in semantic change. Linguistics , 48, 363−390. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R.W
(1987)  Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Volume I. Theoretical Prerequisites . Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1991a)  Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Volume II. Descriptive Application . Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1991b)  Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar [CLR 1]. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000)  Grammar and Conceptualization [CLR 14]. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2008) Cognitive Grammar. A Basic Introduction . New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lass, R
(1997): Historical linguistics and language change. [Cambridge studies in linguistics 81] Cambridge: Cambridge UP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S.C
(2005) Living with Manny’s dangerous idea. In Discourse Studies , 7 (4–5), 431–453. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luhmann, N
(1984)  Soziale Systeme. Grundriß einer allgemeinen Theorie . [stw 666] Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
(1992) The form of writing. Stanford literature review , 9, 25–42.Google Scholar
(1993) Zeichen als Form. In D. Baecker (Ed.), Probleme der Form [stw 1069] (pp. 45–69). Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
(1995)  Social Systems . Stanford: Stanford UP.Google Scholar
(1997)  Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft [stw 1360]. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
. ( 6 2009) Einführende Bemerkungen zu einer Theorie symbolisch generalisierter Kommunikationsmedien. In N. Luhmann: Soziologische Aufklärung, vol. 2: Aufsätze zur Theorie der Gesellschaft (pp. 212–241). Wiesbaden: VS.Google Scholar
Maturana, H.R
(1988)  Ontology of Observing, The biological foundations of self-consciousness and the physical domain of existence . Conference workbook. American Society For Cibernetics Conference, Felton, CA. 18-23 October, 1988. [URL]
(1998) Ontologie des Beobachtens. Die biologischen Grundlagen des Selbst-Bewußtseins und des physikalischen Bereichs der Existenz. In H.R. Maturana, Biologie der Realität (pp. 148–225). Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Mead, G.H
(1934)  Mind, self, and society. From the standpoint of a social behaviorist [Works of George Herbert Mead 1]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press 1967.Google Scholar
Mehler, A
(2008) Large text networks as an object of corpus linguistic studies. HSK 29 (1), 328–382.Google Scholar
Moeller, H.-G
(2006)  Luhmann explained. From souls to systems . [Ideas explained series 3] Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
Munske, H.H
(2002) Wortbildungswandel. In M. Habermann, P.O. Müller & H.H. Munske (Eds.), Historische Wortbildung des Deutschen (pp. 23–40). Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nerlich, B. & Clarke, D.D
(1999) Champ, Schéma, Sujet. Langue française , 121, 36–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007) Cognitive Linguistics and the history of linguistics. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 589–607). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schade, U. et al. (
1991) Kohärenz als Prozess. In G. Rickheit (Ed.), Kohärenzprozesse. Modellierung von Sprachbearbeitung in Texten und Diskursen (pp. 7–58). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E.A
(1996) Turn organization. One intersection of grammar and interaction. In E. Ochs, E.A. Schegloff & S.A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar [Studies in interactional sociolinguistics 13] (pp. 52–133). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E.A., Ochs, E. & Thompson, S.A
(1996) Introduction. In E. Ochs, E.A. Schegloff & S.A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar [Studies in interactional sociolinguistics 13] (pp. 1–51). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schiewek, W
(1992) Zum vernachlässigten Zusammenhang von ‘symbolischer Generalisierung’ und ‘Sprache’ in der Theorie sozialer Systeme. In W. Krawietz & M. Welker (Eds.), Kritik der Theorie sozialer Systeme. Auseinandersetzungen mit Luhmanns Hauptwerk [stw 996] (pp. 147–161). Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Schmid, H.-J
(2007) Entrenchment, Salience, and basic levels. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 115–138). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schulz von Thun, F
(1981)  Miteinander reden . Störungen und Klärungen. Allgemeine Psychologie der Kommunikation . Reinbek: Rowohlt.Google Scholar
Schützeichel, R
(2004)  Soziologische Kommunikationstheorien [UTB 2623]. Konstanz: UVK.Google Scholar
Searle, J.R
(1969)  Speech acts. An essay in the philosophy of language . Cambridge: Cambridge UP, Reprint 2005. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shannon, C.E. & Weaver, W
(1949)  The mathematical theory of communication . Urbana: University of Illinois Press 51972.Google Scholar
Sinha, C
(2007) Cognitive Linguistics, psychology, and cognitive science. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 1266–1294). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Spencer-Brown, G
(1969)  Laws of form . London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Talmy, L
(1978) Figure and ground in complex sentences. In J.H. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of human language, Vol. 4: Syntax (pp. 625–649). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Tuggy, D
(2007) Schematicity. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 82–116). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tummers, J., Heylen, K. & Geeraerts, D
(2005) Usage-based approaches in Cognitive Linguistics. A technical state of the art. Corpus linguistics and linguistic theory , 1–2, 225–261.Google Scholar
Verhagen, A
(2005)  Constructions of intersubjectivity . Discourse, syntax, and cognition . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2007) Construal and perspectivization. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 48–81). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Weinreich, U., Labov, W. & Herzog, M.I
(1968) Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In W.P. Lehmann & Y. Malkiel (Eds.), Directions for historical linguistics (pp. 95–188). Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Wertheimer, M
(1923) Untersuchungen zur Lehre von der Gestalt II. Psychologische Forschung , 4, 301–350. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiener, N
(1948)  Cybernetics . Or control and communication in the animal and the machine . Paris: Hermann.Google Scholar
Wiese, H
(2012)  Kiezdeutsch . Ein neuer Dialekt entsteht [Beck'sche Reihe 6034]. München: Beck.Google Scholar
Zeige, L.E
(2011)  Sprachwandel und soziale Systeme [Germanistische Linguistik Monographien 27]. Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

GÜZEL, Hasan
2023. DİL İLİŞKİLERİNDE KULLANIM TEMELLİ YAKLAŞIM. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Türkiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi (HÜTAD) :38/Özel Sayı ► pp. 97 ff. DOI logo
von Mengden, Ferdinand & Anneliese Kuhle
2020. Recontextualization and language change. Folia Linguistica 54:s41-s1 ► pp. 253 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.